COURT OF APPEAL

Waikato Times, Volume 115, Issue 19203, 13 March 1934, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL

WELLINGTON SESSION

CONDITIONAL LEAVE GRANTED

TO GO TO PRIVY COUNCIL

(By Telegraph,—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON. Monday. The Court of Appeal this morning granted conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the case Barton and others v. Rhodes, Moorhousc and others. Mr. Weston asked the Court to fix damages and allow costs to appellant. He later applied for leave to adduce further evidence relating to facts which occurred since the action was heard and relating to activities of the appellant In Christchurch in connection with his formulae. Mr. O’Leary, for the respondent, objected to evidence being given, and said that in any event the matters intended to be proved thereby were not contested. The Court adjourned until to-mor-row.

ACTION FOR SLANDER. CASE AGAINST JOURNALIST. WELLINGTON, Monday. The Court of Appeal to-day heard the ease on appeal of Reginald Charles Boddie against James Dickson Sievwright, of Wellington, retired journalist. The appeal arises out of an action for slander brought by the appellant Boddie against respondent Sievwright and heard before Mr Justice Ostler in June. Appellant alleged five allegations of slander, which fell into four groups. The first group comprised allegations that appellant had taken down a man called Locky.-m, the respondent, and a certain syndicate; the second, that appellant had failed to account for certain moneys received by him on behalf of this syndicate; the third, that he was crooked and dishonest, that tiie police were after him, and that lie ought to be In gaol; and the fourth, that he hacl been guilty of misrepresentation as a salesman. The respondent first denied the slanders alleged, and then pleaded ihat they were not defamatory, or had been spoken on a privileged occasion, and lastly alleged justification. This last plea was later abandoned as to one of the allegations.

Mr Justice Ostler held that three out of five slanders had been established wholly or in part, but. awarded in respect, of these only flic sum of one-farthing each. He refused to allow costs to Boddie. Grounds of the Appeal. Mr 0. 11. Weston, for appellant, said the broad grounds of appeal were that (a) the allegations of slanders held not lo he established were in fact established at the trial; (b) in respect ■of those two allegations justification was not established by Sievwright; (c) Die ease was not one for contemptuous damages as awarded by Mr Justice Osller, and Ihat (he principle adopted by (hat Judge in fixing damages on a principle based on conduct and not on reputation was not allowed by law; (d) the Court below did not give atIcntion to Iho evidence of respondent’s conduct, which on I i tied appellant to damages. Mr Weston asked Ihe Court to fix damages and allow costs Lo appellant. Mr O’Leary is appearing for respondent.

(Proceeding)